"It is you I want to destroy, not the Monarchy. My family came South with James I. We were defenders of the English Throne before your family was ever heard of."
Notice that the PM makes a distinction between his admiration of the office of King and his dislike of the man currently filling the seat. That's admirable.
Today is the day of the royal wedding, and people like Tony Blair and Barack Obama were not invited. Unlike Urquhart, the royal family does not have the class to respect the office of US president by inviting Obama. It's shameful!!!
PS: I was pro-Bush, and I'm anti-Obama, but I would have invited him if I was royalty. It's what's right
@TomerMMHA Why should they have invited them? Obama insulted our country by making a speech during the playing of the national anthem, and tony Blair was out of town I'll you need to fact check your sources mate. and your not royalty and neither is Obama or Blair they are politicians not worth nor akin to nobility or class.
@TomerMMHA You're talking about the William and Katherine Middleton wedding? Well, none of them should have been invited. It wasn't an official Royal wedding. If William was the Prince of Wales, that would have been different. People need to first understand protocol before shouting away.
@AvatarMarxon90 well said... it's amazing how those who know the least about things bloviate the loudest about what they don't know. Anyone who watched any of the coverage that day would have heard them make this distinction ad nauseum.
Richardson, absolutely one of my most admired, but here, I think, Kitchen makes the day. The way he flitters, the way his voice changes from the challenging to the challenged! Marvellous scene.
Can I ask someone knowledgeable in royal affairs? I heard that the Palace or Clarence House had listening devices installed secretly. How did all this happen? I cannot imagine anyone in the intelligence divisions willing to do that sort of thing.
Michael Kitchen was playing as Prince Charles throughout, they didn't try to hide it in any way. However, I doubt Charles will ever publically oppose a sitting government. He's too big a coward for one thing, and too comfortable.
If this were a 'real' situation, I don't think FU could have forced him out. The public did vote for him, but it was a close call. He would have had a much reduced majority and (as the King said) probably out within the year.
just watched this but have not seen whole series. Yes, there are several constitutional impossibilities here, as others have pointed out. But what interests me is the line "My family came south with James the First" which makes him the latest in a line of Jacobites, supporting the Stuart Claim, as opposed to the Windsors, which, if you read certain authors like Lawrence Gardener, seems to be still a very hot issue. Is this theme explored further in series?
Although this is a fascinating and entertaining series, there are a number of constitutional impossibilities that were presented to us throughout the series. In the first case, a King would never, ever campaign for or against any particular political party.
The British monarchy is one of the very few remaining in the world that has a real power, not just a perceived one, although most foreigners and even most of our own citizens do not understand it. While democratic to its core, the fact remains that the entire dual-power structure evinced by the Civil Service owe its allegiance to the sovereign personally, not the government of the day.
It would also be almost impossible for a Prime Minister to use the Army against the King, as Urquhart did in the kidnapping scheme. As Mrs Thatcher discovered, commanders are unlikely to obey orders that obviously circumvent the national command structure, which includes the sovereign at very important junctures.
@GeorgeKnighton No, if you watch it again it addresses that very point - that's why its done in that subversive way because the army are protecting the King. FU tells the army where the King is and authorises them to protect him - the only constitutionally incorrect situation would be if he used them in a direct attack against the King, this would be an impossibility as the army are in allegiance to the monarch, not the state. As it was for protection it is not incorrect - that is the loophole.
@GeorgeKnighton to address your other point regarding party politics, it is almost as if you haven't watched the series. This argument is also brought up - he defies protocol and backs the opposition (not outright, but that is the insinuation he intends to give off) which is why he has to resign when the party he was in an informal allegiance with failed to gain power. You cannot have a monarch in power which rejects the elected leader.
As an American, I certainly don't know all the details about British politics. But I would like to know: can the prime minister compel the abdication of the monarch? I didn't think that the Prime Minister had that power.
@frantic1971 . The royal family in general are figureheads, above politics and have to be seen to be so. I have no doubt that the abdication of King Edward the Eigth in the late 1930s over his decision to marry Wallis Simpson was demanded, and got, by the government of the day. They were turfed-out as rulers centuries ago.
@frantic1971 No, they don't... Technically. The British constitution is pretty ad hoc, and it rests on an (I believe) unwritten understanding that the monarch does nothing overtly political. As long as they do that, everything works (more or less) and they get to stay on as monarch. No one really knows what'll happen if a monarch were to overstep that line, but in this case Urquhart appears to be suggesting that they find out... unless he were to helpfully abdicate...
If there is ever a confrontation between the Cabinet and Charles III, I wonder whether the public will back him up. He will have to do a lot of work to win the heart of the people. He is a good man, I am sure, but put his foot wrong severely on some core moral issues. Politicians and royalties can be hypocrite so can the general public. There are tons of people in the country with their moral issues in a mess but will castigate him without reservation for being a royal and for being very rich.
@agemangirl1919 You needn't worry. The Queen's mother lived for just over a century, I'm sure Elizabeth plans not to relinquish the throne any time soon. Most likely it will be William by proxy.
My favourite part of the entire series is when FU offers his hand to the king. I laugh out loud every time. And then that little face Michael Kitchen makes, followed by the little face Ian Richardson makes. Fantastic! Love it!
He may certainly end up hearing the conversation on the other side. He pays attention to the footsteps to open the doors at the most opportune moment.
The King wouldn't even shake the P.M.'s hand? A poor sport like that is unworthy to sit on the throne of Great Britain. I'd expect more from an Oxford & Eton man. Must be the inbreeding rotting his mind from within. More's the pity...
This is an excellent lesson in the workings of constitutional monarchy, as well as the general concepts of confidence and consent in a democracy. This is a truly brilliant scene. Thanks for posting.
Michael Kitchener is brilliant at this sort of thing. The reserved guy choked with emotion who can't quite think of anything to say. That takes acting skillz.
That king guy better start looking at the want ads......
happymax1 3 months ago
Urquhart was absolutely right. I love him.
Reazzurro90 4 months ago
I love the look of disgust on michael kitchen's face when ian richardson holds out his hand.
fiveredpears 4 months ago
"You will represent nothing, you will mean nothing, you will be nothing."
TheLoyalOfficer 6 months ago
After he died he was cremated and his ashes were interred in the foundations of the new Shakespeare theatre in Stratford-on-Avon.
rgadave 7 months ago
"It is you I want to destroy, not the Monarchy. My family came South with James I. We were defenders of the English Throne before your family was ever heard of."
Applies today as well.
vintageplayer 7 months ago
@vintageplayer ?
mak34237 3 months ago
Notice that the PM makes a distinction between his admiration of the office of King and his dislike of the man currently filling the seat. That's admirable.
Today is the day of the royal wedding, and people like Tony Blair and Barack Obama were not invited. Unlike Urquhart, the royal family does not have the class to respect the office of US president by inviting Obama. It's shameful!!!
PS: I was pro-Bush, and I'm anti-Obama, but I would have invited him if I was royalty. It's what's right
TomerMMHA 10 months ago
@TomerMMHA Why should they have invited them? Obama insulted our country by making a speech during the playing of the national anthem, and tony Blair was out of town I'll you need to fact check your sources mate. and your not royalty and neither is Obama or Blair they are politicians not worth nor akin to nobility or class.
mak34237 3 months ago
Comment removed
mak34237 3 months ago
@TomerMMHA You're talking about the William and Katherine Middleton wedding? Well, none of them should have been invited. It wasn't an official Royal wedding. If William was the Prince of Wales, that would have been different. People need to first understand protocol before shouting away.
AvatarMarxon90 3 months ago
@AvatarMarxon90 well said... it's amazing how those who know the least about things bloviate the loudest about what they don't know. Anyone who watched any of the coverage that day would have heard them make this distinction ad nauseum.
kendahke 3 months ago
Richardson, absolutely one of my most admired, but here, I think, Kitchen makes the day. The way he flitters, the way his voice changes from the challenging to the challenged! Marvellous scene.
systemspel 11 months ago
Is that Charles III?
HMservant 11 months ago
How Francis so deliciously and effortlessly cuts the king to shreds in this scene is priceless. Great Britain's J.R. Ewing!
59cdv 11 months ago
too bad our best pm lived only in fiction
mamelucoderribado 1 year ago
@mamelucoderribado Interesting...................until he fucks over your family.
vorn29 1 year ago
The best Prime Minister that Britain never had since Rab Butler!
jeremytravers1 1 year ago
Best. Prime. Minister. Ever.
wjcapehart 1 year ago
Can I ask someone knowledgeable in royal affairs? I heard that the Palace or Clarence House had listening devices installed secretly. How did all this happen? I cannot imagine anyone in the intelligence divisions willing to do that sort of thing.
tnakai1971jp 1 year ago
Michael Kitchen was playing as Prince Charles throughout, they didn't try to hide it in any way. However, I doubt Charles will ever publically oppose a sitting government. He's too big a coward for one thing, and too comfortable.
If this were a 'real' situation, I don't think FU could have forced him out. The public did vote for him, but it was a close call. He would have had a much reduced majority and (as the King said) probably out within the year.
Kidsgrove49 1 year ago
The writing is simply brilliant!
SCWahoo 1 year ago
Hi,
just watched this but have not seen whole series. Yes, there are several constitutional impossibilities here, as others have pointed out. But what interests me is the line "My family came south with James the First" which makes him the latest in a line of Jacobites, supporting the Stuart Claim, as opposed to the Windsors, which, if you read certain authors like Lawrence Gardener, seems to be still a very hot issue. Is this theme explored further in series?
thanks, wordofgord
thewordofgord 1 year ago
Although this is a fascinating and entertaining series, there are a number of constitutional impossibilities that were presented to us throughout the series. In the first case, a King would never, ever campaign for or against any particular political party.
GeorgeKnighton 1 year ago
The British monarchy is one of the very few remaining in the world that has a real power, not just a perceived one, although most foreigners and even most of our own citizens do not understand it. While democratic to its core, the fact remains that the entire dual-power structure evinced by the Civil Service owe its allegiance to the sovereign personally, not the government of the day.
GeorgeKnighton 1 year ago
It would also be almost impossible for a Prime Minister to use the Army against the King, as Urquhart did in the kidnapping scheme. As Mrs Thatcher discovered, commanders are unlikely to obey orders that obviously circumvent the national command structure, which includes the sovereign at very important junctures.
GeorgeKnighton 1 year ago
@GeorgeKnighton No, if you watch it again it addresses that very point - that's why its done in that subversive way because the army are protecting the King. FU tells the army where the King is and authorises them to protect him - the only constitutionally incorrect situation would be if he used them in a direct attack against the King, this would be an impossibility as the army are in allegiance to the monarch, not the state. As it was for protection it is not incorrect - that is the loophole.
Rorxz 1 year ago
@GeorgeKnighton
That's it's great strength, loyalty to to the permanent embodiment of the nation and people, to any political force.
CableW11 1 year ago
@GeorgeKnighton to address your other point regarding party politics, it is almost as if you haven't watched the series. This argument is also brought up - he defies protocol and backs the opposition (not outright, but that is the insinuation he intends to give off) which is why he has to resign when the party he was in an informal allegiance with failed to gain power. You cannot have a monarch in power which rejects the elected leader.
Rorxz 1 year ago
Brilliant !
seamie20 1 year ago
I know this is not how it's supposed to be, but I sympathize with Urqugart, not with the king, at all.
Reazzurro90 1 year ago
As an American, I certainly don't know all the details about British politics. But I would like to know: can the prime minister compel the abdication of the monarch? I didn't think that the Prime Minister had that power.
frantic1971 1 year ago
@frantic1971 . The royal family in general are figureheads, above politics and have to be seen to be so. I have no doubt that the abdication of King Edward the Eigth in the late 1930s over his decision to marry Wallis Simpson was demanded, and got, by the government of the day. They were turfed-out as rulers centuries ago.
rgadave 1 year ago
@frantic1971 No, they don't... Technically. The British constitution is pretty ad hoc, and it rests on an (I believe) unwritten understanding that the monarch does nothing overtly political. As long as they do that, everything works (more or less) and they get to stay on as monarch. No one really knows what'll happen if a monarch were to overstep that line, but in this case Urquhart appears to be suggesting that they find out... unless he were to helpfully abdicate...
MichaelJ192 1 year ago
If there is ever a confrontation between the Cabinet and Charles III, I wonder whether the public will back him up. He will have to do a lot of work to win the heart of the people. He is a good man, I am sure, but put his foot wrong severely on some core moral issues. Politicians and royalties can be hypocrite so can the general public. There are tons of people in the country with their moral issues in a mess but will castigate him without reservation for being a royal and for being very rich.
agemangirl1919 1 year ago
@agemangirl1919 You needn't worry. The Queen's mother lived for just over a century, I'm sure Elizabeth plans not to relinquish the throne any time soon. Most likely it will be William by proxy.
Rorxz 1 year ago
@Rorxz
Do you think there will be an attempt to make his reign short?
agemangirl1919 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A good Prime Minister says; "...you might very vell think that I cound't possibly comment"
My favourite trilogy. Althought FU is playing and evil PM, there is somthing about him...
And yes, Ian Richardson was a great actor. He died al too early. He was excellent.
danielmajgren 1 year ago
Comment removed
danielmajgren 1 year ago
Comment removed
danielmajgren 1 year ago
Comment removed
danielmajgren 1 year ago
Comment removed
danielmajgren 1 year ago
Comment removed
danielmajgren 1 year ago
Ian Richardson is tops in this part.
You may as well think that, I couldn`t possibly comment.
Thebirdienumnum 2 years ago
Ian Richardson did not get the recognition he deserved, he is up there with the likes of Alec Guiness, he does not play a part, he occupies it !.
rgadave 2 years ago
My favourite part of the entire series is when FU offers his hand to the king. I laugh out loud every time. And then that little face Michael Kitchen makes, followed by the little face Ian Richardson makes. Fantastic! Love it!
bowdenthompson 2 years ago
He may certainly end up hearing the conversation on the other side. He pays attention to the footsteps to open the doors at the most opportune moment.
Kenta19191919 2 years ago
Ian Richardson was indeed a great actor!
7JCvos1990 2 years ago 19
Comment removed
LDeezy223 2 years ago
Meh, I was rooting for the King. Dismiss him. GREAT scene though.
Selebii 2 years ago 4
Brilliant acting and exchange from both characters here.
At one point i thought hrh was going to cry with dispair.
FU really is a titan to contend with and outwits the man at every turn.
WatchRyder 2 years ago 2
we loved and identified with FU so much...
a well oiled machine without consience...
until this part....fu is about to get enough
rope to hang himself.....win not every
battle if you want to win a war...
jpandyaraja 2 years ago 3
The King wouldn't even shake the P.M.'s hand? A poor sport like that is unworthy to sit on the throne of Great Britain. I'd expect more from an Oxford & Eton man. Must be the inbreeding rotting his mind from within. More's the pity...
WiZSOC 2 years ago 4
That was a great scene, carried by two outstanding actors. Excellent scene!
qwertyman129 2 years ago 16
Superb performance here from two fine actors. Ian Richardson was a great loss to film and drama. Thanx for posting Owen
raherecolston 2 years ago 5
This is an excellent lesson in the workings of constitutional monarchy, as well as the general concepts of confidence and consent in a democracy. This is a truly brilliant scene. Thanks for posting.
leostoltoy 2 years ago 6
Michael Kitchener is brilliant at this sort of thing. The reserved guy choked with emotion who can't quite think of anything to say. That takes acting skillz.
urquhart2001 2 years ago 6
Or perhaps Kitchen. Maybe I've been reading too many of Vicky Pollard's essays.
urquhart2001 2 years ago 2
keep more of these clips coming - FU is my hero!
gideonrozner 2 years ago